Sunspots 1004

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others:

An extensive web site on Charles Wesley.

Gizmodo reports on terrible conditions for living things in ancient times. Probably these threats were caused, or enhanced, by ferns. That's right, ferns.

An article in The Conversation, discusses testosterone levels carefully. Unlike some.

NPR, and other outlets on a rogue artificial intelligence, which hacked into another AI, without help from real humans.

SpaceDaily reports on exploration, deep in ocean tranches, by a Chinese group, which found large ecosystems, getting their energy from methane and other molecules.

Joel Duff has posted a careful analysis of Intelligent Design ideas.

Heart, Mind,, Soul and Strength gives a list of Greek words for kinds of love, and, also, Greek words for love that weren't used in the New Testament.

Sunspots 995

 

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others.

Discover Wildlife reports on a fish with a hole in its head, and what that hole probably does. Photos included.

National Public Radio reports that a Texas A&M professor has been told to not consider Plato in his philosophy class.

Gizmodo reports that rich people, world-wide, are responsible for a large portion of greenhouse gasses emitted.

A BigThink writer discusses the question "Why does something exist instead of nothing?" (The writer says that there is no possible scientific answer to this question.)

BisThink also discusses the state of particle physics, with discussion and diagrams.

ZDNet tested six chatbots, and found that all of them made a serious error on at least one of the tasks posed by the author.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 990

 

Things I have spotted that may be of interest to others. Graphic from NASA.

Bible Scholar Ken Schenck on the different interpretations of early Genesis.

Schenck also has posted an analysis of what the Bible says about God's omniscience. It's not as straightforward as I thought..

Sojourners has an article on ministering to Christians with dementia (usually in their home). Sojourners allows you to read two articles a month, free.

Gizmodo has a chilling report on the firing of the Centers for Disease Control head, less than a month after she was confirmed, by Rober F. Kennedy, Jr., and how he is not using real science in his decision-making.  

Gizmodo also reports that a significant number of people say that they are in some sort of relationship with a chatbot.

Sunspots 989

 

Things that I have spotted that may be of interest to others:

Gizmodo reports that spending too much time reading or scrolling while defecating increases your likelihood of getting hemorrhoids. 

Gizmodo also reports that some ant queens are capable of producing offspring of a different species.

Politico reports that Artificial Intelligence war games have a disturbing tendency to escalate into global war.

Biologos points out that several of the most important Christian thinkers of the past did not believe that the Genesis 1-2 were to be taken as describing literal 24 hour days, in sequence.   These thinkers included Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and B..B. Warlield.

Ken Schenck discusses the concept of creation out of nothing, and concludes that our current understanding of that idea has not existed (!) until recently.

Politico says that Apple is making a forthcoming artificial intelligence ability so that it's more likely to please Donald Trump.

Nature reports that scientists are discussing the possibility of producing "mirror life," organisms made from  molecules that are mirror images of those naturally occurring in living things.

Today is "square root day" -  9 + 16 = 25.

Thanks for reading!

Evidence of various kinds for evolution

TalkOrigins has published an extensive on-line document, free to use, on the many evidences for evolution. No doubt there are some flaws, but it's pretty extensive, and seems to cover the ground well.

The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events:

 

"An Open Letter to Ken Ham"

The Sparks blog has posted an open letter to Ken Ham, which is well worth reading.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative, part 2

In recent post on this blog, I argued that Genesis is not straightforward historical narrative. Many Christ-loving Bible scholars had already said this, for many reasons. My principal reason was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot be straightforward historical narrative, because there are discrepancies between these two chapters. See graphic:

There is another important reason for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 are straightforward historical narrative. That reason is that the firmament, or expanse, mentioned in Genesis 1, does not exist. The Hebrews of Bible times believed that there was a solid, transparent dome above the earth, which held up the heavenly bodies, as well as water, in its various forms. They thought wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the beliefs of the writers/readers/listeners. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. Genesis does not say that you have to believe in a firmament to please God. There is no reference to an expanse or firmament in the commonly  used creeds of the church. The churches of today do not expect belief in a firmament/expanse as a requirement of members.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written, not to teach astronomy, but to emphasize the existence of an all-powerful Creator, who is deeply concerned about the fate of humans.

Thanks for reading.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative? Genesis 1 and 2

The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith says, in part: “The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.” … and “The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages but are six consecutive, 24-hour days of creation; …”

Two previous posts (genre, and culture) on this blog describe the effect of genre, and of the culture of the writers, and listeners/readers, in ancient times, on what the Bible communicates. Those effects, and other reasons, indicate that Genesis 1-2, in particular, is not simple, and does not necessarily communicate consecutive events. 

 

Let’s consider the questions of simplicity and of consecutive events.

 

Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans, male and female, on Day 6. If Genesis 2 does, it doesn’t do so simply. Adam comes at the beginning, and Eve at the end, in chapter 2. It is possible to reconcile these accounts on this point, but, to do so, one must depart from a “plain reading of scripture.*” Genesis 1 also puts land plants in day 3, before the creation of humans, whereas Genesis 2 seems to put Adam before the plants. Genesis 1 puts the creation of animals on day 6, whereas Genesis 2 appears to put that creation after the appearance of Adam. Answers in Genesis, and others, believe that Genesis 2:19 should be translated to say that God “had formed” -- already done it -- before presenting the animals to Adam. Perhaps, but only four of the Bible versions given in the Blueletter Bible say that. The other thirteen say “formed,” as if it happened as they were presented to Adam. One of the four that says “had formed” gives “formed" as an alternate reading.

There are many God-fearing, Christ-believing Bible scholars who are convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be step-by-step historical narrative, and/or who do not think that their purpose was to establish the timing of creation. Listen to N. T. Wright, for one.

There are other reasons for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to give us a step-by-step historical narrative of the creation. God willing, I shall continue this series.

Answers in Genesis zealously defends the Bible, if the Bible needs any defense, but they propose at least one really strange idea of how to look at the Bible.

*Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, “Pausing for a Leaven warning,” March 2, 2023, writes “we should always be suspicious when the secular world proclaims anything at odds with a plain reading of Scripture.” That phrase, “plain reading of scripture,” is claimed as the foundation of Answers in Genesis, the most influential young-earth entity.